July 09, 2004
How Convenient
Bush's military records were accidentally destroyed. Or should that be "accidentally"? It's an amazing coincidence that:
The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
I'm willing to accept the fact that such things happen, but I'm going to need much more proof that it was an accident than this administration's word. Again and again they've proven they're absolutely brazen enough to do something like purposefully destroy records and then claim it was an accident. Maybe it was, but I'm going to assume it wasn't until there's solid evidence to the contrary.
Sensible comments, Mall. But even if they were destroyed willfully your still stuck with the problem of who did it, and whether they did so because they feared for Bush in general, or because they really did know that the records were damning. Or did a watergate-esque insurgent steal the records for opposition research during the 2000 election? We don't know.
It's true, we don't know much about it. However, given that Bush has declared his intentions to give access to all his records, but has yet to sign a release form for them and given that the evidence to date suggests some serious irregularites in his service record, I think it's safe to assume that the records were destroyed to protect Bush rather than damage him. Of course, if they suddenly show up in a Kerry-Edwards slideshow, that'd be a completely different story.
Downto,
Come on now. Let's be honest. Of course we don't know for certain what happen. We could say that about lots of things. But everything points to unethical behavior. The Bushies have been trying to get out of this pickle for a while and it looks like they figured out a way. I'd say for reasonable people all indicators point to them. Once again, the lesson for politicians is be honest and forthright at the start and you will be a lot better off. If the administration had said "The president goofed off. He regrets it and he believes he has matured since then." no one would care. I hate to admit but I think what we have here is tangled web . . .
I'm working for a Federal Office this summer, and we just had lunch with some guys who do a lot of legal work on the civil side of things. They were saying that their number one frustration is Federal Agencies accidentally destroying or losing files. The Social Security people and the Post Office apparently do it all the time, almost alarmingly often, yet it's unavoidable when you're talking about offices and systems that large (like the Pentagon, the largest office building in the world).
Well, like I wrote, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it was an honest accident, but I'll need evidence of the fact first. In most cases I assume the most benign, plausible explanation is true, but this is just a bit too convenient for Bush that the exact records in dispute were destroyed. Unfortunately, the benign explanation isn't the most plausible right now.